Griswold V. Connecticut Supreme Court Case Analysis

People have the right to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters and relationships. They have the right to control their own lives in a fashion that is secluded from the public's critical observations. This right to privacy protects the liberty of people to make particular consequential decisions regarding their own well-being without the involvement or interference of the government. Such decisions may involve procreation, the termination of treatment and assisted death, and private sexual affairs. Although the Constitution does not have explicit written Amendments regarding the right to privacy, it can be interpreted that the amendments were built on the aspect of privacy. While, the government of any state is not constitutionally

A Connecticut statute criminalized married couple from the use of birth control. A director of Planned Parenthood, Estelle Griswold, who was a physician opened a clinic to challenge this law. Griswold and another, Lee Buxton, gave medical advise and birth control to married couples. They were arrested and charged for violating the statute by giving information and medical advice to married couples on means of preventing conception. Appealing to the Supreme Court, it noted that the State government had no business in the marital bedroom. The Supreme Court deliberated that certain decisions exist within a “zone of privacy” protected by the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments. The 1st Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs which is the establishment clause. The 4th Amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures. A person has the right to be secure in their own person. This privacy extended to the 14th amendment. The 9th Amendment is interpreted as justification to protect privacy in ways not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Lastly, the 14th Amendment prevents states from denying its citizens their fundamental rights of life and liberty without due process. In this Amendment the right of liberty represents the right to privacy. The Supreme Court struck down the law on the grounds that is was unconstitutional. In this case the Supreme court

The case Lawrence v Texas, 2003, involves the right to engage in sexual activities with a partner of one's choosing, no matter the gender. For years before this case, the Courts have allowed States to criminalize homosexual activities. Engaging in consensual sex did not extend to homosexuals at the time. This court case challenged the law of Texas, the “Homosexual Conduct Law”, which forbade two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested for being caught in the action of having sex. The Houston police broke into Lawrence's apartment because they were responding to a reported weapons disturbance and saw him with Garner engaging in private consensual sex. The State Court of Appeals held that this law was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This decision was made based off one of the past cases, Bowers v. Hardwick. The Supreme Court overruled the decision in that case. It ruled that their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause extends to their right to engage in intimate sexual activities, without the interference of the government. The Texas Statute does not have legitimate state interest which can justify their intrusion into the personal and private lives of the people. The court safeguarded the right to privacy in this case by